Keywords: disinformation, elections, technology, open data, Venezuela, Uruguay

This study aims to examine the role of disinformation in the 2024 elections of Venezuela and Uruguay, focusing on how differing political contexts influence the strategies, impacts, and countermeasures associated with disinformation. The goal is to identify lessons that can guide future efforts to mitigate disinformation’s effects on democratic processes.

The role of disinformation in elections has garnered significant global attention, particularly in the context of the 2024 electoral processes worldwide. The cases of Venezuela and Uruguay, despite occurring in vastly different political and institutional contexts, reveal critical insights into the interplay between disinformation, democratic resilience, and technological innovation. This proposal is part of the work of the Complutense Observatory of Disinformation (Complutense University of Madrid), which analyses incidents of electoral disinformation in Latin America.

This comparative analysis employs a qualitative approach, drawing on reports from international observers, media analyses, and academic studies. The theoretical framework is based on concepts of democratic resilience and information warfare, with a focus on the use of technology and civic engagement as tools to counteract disinformation.

The Venezuelan case highlights the importance of open data provided by the opposition, including scanned tally sheets and independent audit reports from entities such as the Carter Center and the United Nations Panel of Experts. For Uruguay, the study references data from the Electoral Court, fact-checking organizations, and social media monitoring reports. Both cases incorporate insights from international media outlets and academic research.

Key variables analyzed include the sources and types of disinformation, technological interventions, regulatory measures, and civic responses. The study contrasts the top-down disinformation strategies in Venezuela with the more diffuse and externally influenced campaigns in Uruguay. It also examines the effectiveness of countermeasures, such as open data initiatives and institutional monitoring systems.

Uruguay and Venezuela can be considered the best and the worst cases of democracy in Latin America region. For the Economist Intelligence Unit, that classifies countries based on their democratic status, Uruguay is categorized as a "full democracy," highlighting its strong democratic institutions and practices, while Venezuela is classified as an "authoritarian regime," underscoring the significant erosion of democratic norms and governance structures. However, both Venezuela and Uruguay highlight the complex and dual role of technology for democracies.

In Venezuela, the government employed deepfakes, pseudo-media outlets, and manipulated surveys to undermine opposition narratives. However, the opposition’s innovative use of open data and AI-powered tools facilitated transparency and citizen participation, challenging the regime’s narrative. In Uruguay, disinformation campaigns targeted voter trust and polarization, but strong institutional frameworks and proactive regulations minimized their impact. Both cases highlight the dual role of technology, which can both perpetuate and combat disinformation depending on its use.

The 2024 elections in Venezuela and Uruguay demonstrate the critical role of context in shaping disinformation’s impact. Venezuela’s experience underscores the power of grassroots mobilization and technological innovation in authoritarian contexts, while Uruguay exemplifies the importance of institutional readiness and regulatory measures in democratic settings. These cases offer valuable lessons for other democracies